A belated linguistic-minority claim cannot reopen a concluded counselling round but may be considered in subsequent rounds.

The petitioner applied to the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) for undergraduate medical admissions for 2026–27.

Her application stated that her mother tongue was Tulu, but she did not select the separate “Linguistic Claim” option; her verification slip consequently recorded no study years for a linguistic claim.

She sought permission to establish her Tulu linguistic-minority eligibility and participate in counselling.

KEA relied on the UG NEET-2026 brochure, which stated that no changes or claims would be accepted after document verification and issuance of the verification slip.

At the hearing, KEA submitted that the third counselling round had concluded and option entry was closing that day.

Whether the Court should direct KEA to receive and verify the petitioner’s Tulu linguistic-minority claim despite her failure to select the relevant option in the online application.

Whether the petitioner could be considered for counselling in a subsequent round, notwithstanding the omission and the stage reached in the counselling process.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Clause 4.9.8 of the UG NEET-2026 brochure required candidates to verify the particulars on their verification slips and stated that no changes or claims would be accepted after verification and issuance of the slip.

The Court also referred to a coordinate Bench’s observation that, in centralized medical-seat selection, any relaxation of a condition must be available equally to all eligible candidates; granting it to one candidate alone could undermine merit.

The petitioner relied on M. Monisha v. Karnataka Examinations Authority, but the Court distinguished that decision on its facts.

The Court considered the petitioner’s stated Tulu mother tongue and the omission reflected in her verification slip, but also took account of the brochure’s restriction on post-verification changes and KEA’s submission that the third counselling round had culminated.

It found the present case materially different from M. Monisha and referred to the principle that a relaxation in centralized medical admissions cannot be extended to one candidate alone without regard to equal treatment and merit.

In those circumstances, it declined to grant the requested intervention in the ongoing process.

It clarified, however, that dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from being considered in any subsequent counselling round that may be held.